Arbitrariness and Discrimination in the Administration of the Death Penalty - A Challenge to State Supreme Courts

• NCJ Number: 104635
• Journal: Stetson Law Review Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1986) Pages: 133-261
• Author(s): D C Baldus; C A Pulaski; G Woodworth
• Date Published: 1986
• Length: 129 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation; National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: This article is an expanded version of a paper presented by Professor Baldus at the second Annual Distinguished Scholars' Lecture, Stetson University, College of Law, March 25, 1985.

Annotation

Almost 15 years after Furman v. Georgia, there is incomplete empirical evidence regarding the extent to which subsequent sentencing reforms have reduced the arbitrariness and discrimination in capital sentencing condemned in 'Furman,' largely because State supreme courts have failed to monitor the administration of the death penalty.

Abstract

The empirical evidence on capital sentencing that does exist suggests that arbitrariness and discrimination still occur, although less severely than during the pre-Furman era. Evidence also indicates that the extent of arbitrariness and discrimination varies considerably among jurisdictions and various stages of the death sentencing selection process. Because State supreme courts lack the data that would document the existence of arbitrariness and discrimination in capital sentencing, they have vacated few post-Furman death sentences as excessive, disproportionate, or discriminatory. Such data have not been collected by State supreme courts probably due to justices' fear that the courts cannot competently collect and analyze such data. This article suggests remedies for excessiveness and discrimination in death sentencing and proposes a method for measuring excessiveness and racial discrimination within a capital sentencing system. 11 tables, 3 figures, 132 footnotes, and appended supplementary information. (Author summary modified)